Prove It Isn’t So, Sen. Ashcroft

After Taking $50,000 from Schering-Plough, Voters Need Action to Prove Missouri’s Junior Senator Isn’t
Captured By Special Interests

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The consumer watchdog group Public Citizen issued a challenge Monday to Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft (R) to wipe away the stain of impropriety that corporate donations have placed on his office.

On June 18, the Kansas City Star reported that John Ashcroft’s soft-money Victory Committee took $50,000 from the drug firm Schering Corp., the parent company of the better-known Schering-Plough. The company makes Claritin, a blockbuster drug that helped the company post a whopping $2.1 billion in profits last year.

The reason for Schering’s generosity is obvious. Ashcroft chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights, which oversees patent regulations. Schering has launched an unprecedented sneak attack to try and extend its Claritin patent, a move that could cost consumers $7.3 billion in continued monopoly drug prices, according to a study by the University of Minnesota’s PRIME Institute. Extending the patent would delay competition for Claritin from generic drug makers and other competitors, who typically charge cheaper prices.

"Senator Ashcroft, we need you to step up to the plate and persuade your fellow Senators not to let these sneaky riders go through," said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch.

Clemente was speaking on behalf of Public Citizen’s 1,700 members in Missouri.

Schering-Plough is reported to be attempting to secretly attach riders on the Military Construction supplemental appropriations bill, which is currently being conferenced between the House and Senate and is expected to be finished this week.

"When John Ashcroft’s political committee took $50,000 from a company that is attempting to use the power of government to swipe $7.3 billion from consumers’ pocketbooks, he made himself immediately suspect," Clemente said. "If he wants to disabuse voters of the impression that he’s totally bought and paid for, he needs to work hard to block this blatant money grab.

"This patent extension couldn’t survive the full light of day. Sen. Ashcroft needs to help make sure it doesn’t succeed in a shadowy, back-room deal."

In addition, Columbia University is seeking to extend its Cotransformation patent, which could give the university an extra $500 million in royalties for a product that was developed with taxpayer money.

Schering-Plough made the $50,000 donation to Ashcroft on September 30, 1999, during a crucial period when the Claritin bill was before his subcommittee. It is the only such soft-money contribution that the company has ever given to benefit an individual Senator. This huge donation is only one part of Schering-Plough’s dramatically increased lobbying on this issue. The company spent $9.2 million lobbying Congress in 1999, more than any other pharmaceutical or biotechnology firm, according to its lobby disclosure reports. That amount was up from $4.3 million in 1998.

"They are pulling out all the stops to get that extension," Clemente said. "They couldn’t do it with a stand-alone bill so now they’re trying the secretive approach, enlisting an anonymous Senator to insert the language.

"This sneaky trick absolutely should not stand in a democracy. By taking such an unprecedented contribution from a special interest with business before his committee, Sen. Ashcroft has a special burden to uphold the integrity of the Senate and prevent Schering-Plough’s greed from running roughshod over consumer need."

Last year, the company enlisted its home-state Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.) to sponsor the Claritin patent extension as bill S.1172. The bill has since been tied up in the Judiciary Committee. Sen. Ashcroft remains a co-sponsor of the bill, even after fellow Sens. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and Max Cleland (D-Ga.) withdrew their support.

"The people of Missouri deserve a Senator who will stand up for their rights as consumers, not conspire to help multi-billion-dollar corporations extend their monopoly power over new drugs," Clemente said. "Which will it be, Senator?"

Click here for the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch editorial "The Senator from Claritin"
(text also available below)

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Wednesday, July 5, 2000
The Senator from Claritin

Congress wants to do something about the unconscionable cost of prescription medicine: Increase it.

Legislation now pending would extend by three years Schering-Plough's 20-year patent on the popular allergy medication Claritin and seven other drugs. That means less expensive generic versions couldn't be sold, so consumers would pony up an additional $11 billion over the next five years.

You certainly can't blame Schering-Plough for trying. Claritin, which reportedly sells for $2.66 a pill -- so much some insurance plans won't pay for it -- is a blockbuster drug for the company. Schering-Plough argues it needs the extension because it waited years for FDA approval. The company can expect to earn $5 million a day on Claritin sales if the bill is passed. So far, it has spent a comparatively paltry $8.5 million in political donations and lobbying fees this year.

Of that amount, $50,000 went to the Ashcroft Victory Committee, a joint fund-raising committee set up by Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. By remarkable coincidence, Mr. Ashcroft is a co-sponsor of the bill, which his campaign spokesman characterized as "meritorious."

But the Senator from Claritin is not alone in backing this odious bill. He has plenty of company on both sides of the aisle. Locally, Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde and Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt are co-sponsors in the House, as was, until recently, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson. Nor is Schering-Plough the only company bellied up to the public trough. Columbia University is seeking similar patent extensions on drugs developed there.

As with many other corporate welfare bills, the patent protection act surfaced so quietly that an early version was circulated without identifying the legislation's author. Only after the Seniors Coalition ran newspaper ads offering $1,000 to anyone who could name "Senator Anonymous" did the author's identity come to light. Even then, Sen. Orrin Hatch -- who originally denied he was behind the effort -- blamed members of his staff for circulating the proposal. Mr. Hatch, who campaigned for president on a Schering-Plough corporate jet, insisted he never could have supported the proposal drafted by his staff.

If nothing else, this episode proves that Claritin is represented by the same number of U.S. Senators as Missouri. The question, teary-eyed Midwestern allergy sufferers should be asking is, "Who represents us?"

Back to the Claritin Patent Extension Index

Back to the Drug Industry Index

Back to the Prescription Drugs Homepage